This is a big deal -- the Arab League applying political pressure to a member to clean up its human-rights record. Or, put another way, putting itself on one side, at the beginning, of an inevitable civil war. But, either way, trying to solve this as a matter of regional interest without involving the Western powers directly. Is that a new development? Has it ever been done before?

In answer to the o.p. I hope not, but if they insist on doing it ,why don't we let them get on with it on their own.

What if the Free Syrian Army asks for U.S./NATO air support, like the Libyan rebels did? Should we still "let them get on with it on their own"?

Another possible -- not sure how possible -- scenario is where the U.S. and NATO stay out of it, but the Arab League states (that is, such of them as have good air forces -- Egypt, maybe) give the Syrian rebels all the air support they want. That would be unprecedented, but so are the League's recent decisions to suspend and sanction Syria. Any reason the West should have a problem with that? It might be the first step to the AL becoming a power in its own right, like the EU.

Syria's Air Force is NOT launching air attacks on civilian or military targets. They are using snipes, and ground based cannon. This is not the same as a no fly zone. Syria has over invested in armor, as benefits it status as a soviet client in the 1980's. Many Syrian tanks are at least 30 years old.

The Turkish foreign minister has said that Ankara is ready for any scenario if Syria continues its crackdown on protests against President Bashar al-Assad, but that his country is opposed to a military option against its neighbour.

Ahmet Davutoglu, in an interview with television broadcaster Kanal 24 on Tuesday, said: "We hope that a military intervention will never be necessary.

"However, the Syrian regime has to find a way of making peace with its own people to eliminate this option. If the oppression continues, Turkey is ready for any scenario."

Davutoglu also said the international community may decide a buffer zone is needed in Syria if increasing numbers of people try to flee the violence there.

"If tens, hundreds of thousands of people start advancing towards the Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey borders, not only Turkey but the international community may be required to take some steps such as a buffer zone," he said.

Oh, and this is interesting:

Quote:

Meanwhile, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister dismissed calls for an arms embargo on Syria and warned against imposing ultimatums on Assad's government.

Speaking in Moscow on Tuesday after a meeting with the Icelandic foreign minister, Lavrov said that calls for an arms embargo on Syria were "unfair", adding that armed groups opposing the government had been supplied from the outside.

He drew parallels to the fighting in Libya, where he said the West armed the opposition forces despite a UN arms embargo.

Dude, if it's not unfair for third parties to pick a side in a conflict, then it's not unfair for them to support that side to, like, the exclusion of the other.

Conceivable scenario: There's a civil war in Syria. As in Libya, the rebels win with outside support -- but that of Turkey and the Arab League, not of the U.S. or NATO. Possible?

Turkey has said it will suspend all financial dealings with Syria and freeze the assets of Bashar al-Assad's government as part of sanctions against its former ally.

Announcing the measures apparently aimed at persuading the Syrian president to end his crackdown against pro-democracy protesters, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, said in Ankara on Wednesday that Assad's government had come "to the end of the road".

He said Turkey will block the delivery of all weapons and military equipment to Syria.

I think that for some of the more autocratic countries supporting the sanctions, like Saudi Arabia, they're intended to act more as a quarantine - lock the patient inside, wait till the disease kills him, and hope it doesn't spread.